I've tried but don't understand

[avatuar9]

I've been playing around with digital recording for about 3 years. Now that I am taking it more seriously, I've been doing alot of reading and getting as much info as I can about making really good recordings.

Something I don't understand is why my vocals sound like home recordings. While listening to some commercial pop recordings today, I've noticed that the vocals on those recordings sound more natural, as if the singer was singing about 3 feet away. It's as if they were placed much further away in the sound field. They also sound more centered and more isolated.

My recordings don't sound like that at all. My vocal recordings sound like they are much much closer and are spreadout across the sound field. They don't have that commercial quality to them. Even my friends demo sounds like commercial quality sound. I don't understand what I'm missing here. I'm placing my vocals about 6 to 8 inches away from the mic like many books suggest so as not to pickup noise floor and room reflections. I'm also rolling of the lower frequencies as to make up for the proximity effect. I'm also recording the vocals in mono, like they should be for most pop recordings.

How do you move a vocal back in the sound field if your vocal is in mono. What am I doing wrong? If anybody with more experience knows what I'm talking about, please help me.

 

[chessrock]

Well, it sounds to me like you're starting to catch on to the complexities of sound engineering. And obviously, getting a comercial-quality sound is a lot more involving than following a cake recipe.

The kind of financial expense and sheer time investment in getting a comercial / pop sound is quite staggering. So much so that record companies and artists literally pay millions of dollars to record with producers and engineers whom they know can help them get a particular quality of sound. It's big business, so don't feel bad if you can't just pick up some books and get professional vocals with your home setup after 3 years of semi-serious practice. Maybe you can start giving Dr. Dre, Mutt Lange or Quincy Jones a run for their money someday (after another 10 years of intense training, education, internships, etc.?), but it ain't happening right now, alright? . . . so be patient.

Right now, (and this is mostly a guess) it sounds like a lot of your issues have to do with compression and reverb, for the most part. That might be a good place for you to start; learning good compression technique will help your vocal tracks to sound more focused, or centered as you put it. And tasteful/artistic use of reverb (or natural ambience if you're lucky enough to have a good space) will allow you greater control over how close or how far back you can place a vocal in the context of your mix.

Here are some terms you might want to start looking up and studying: pre-delay, early reflections, diffusion, reverb tail and several more I can't really think of off the top of my head.

Good luck.

 

[apl]

Hey, avatuar9.

I'm no expert, but I like to open the bedroom closet door (my wife's since it's packed) and put the mic stand in the closet so that the clothes are right behind it. The clothes absorb a big chunk of the vocals after they go past the mic, so the reflections the get picked up are minimal. Then I add reverb and compression to taste. I don't remember how I got the idea. I'm probably trying to emulate the nearly dead acoustics of a vocal booth.

Here's a song I recorded that way:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=118786

Oh, and are you using a good mic/pre/soundcard?

PS Please post your comments about the song over there.

Thanks!

 

[bsanfordnyc]

I've been playing around with digital recording for about 3 years. Now that I am taking it more seriously, I've been doing alot of reading and getting as much info as I can about making really good recordings.

Something I don't understand is why my vocals sound like home recordings. While listening to some commercial pop recordings today, I've noticed that the vocals on those recordings sound more natural, as if the singer was singing about 3 feet away. It's as if they were placed much further away in the sound field. They also sound more centered and more isolated.

My recordings don't sound like that at all. My vocal recordings sound like they are much much closer and are spreadout across the sound field. They don't have that commercial quality to them. Even my friends demo sounds like commercial quality sound. I don't understand what I'm missing here. I'm placing my vocals about 6 to 8 inches away from the mic like many books suggest so as not to pickup noise floor and room reflections. I'm also rolling of the lower frequencies as to make up for the proximity effect. I'm also recording the vocals in mono, like they should be for most pop recordings.

How do you move a vocal back in the sound field if your vocal is in mono. What am I doing wrong? If anybody with more experience knows what I'm talking about, please help me.

Like Chessrock said, compression and reverb. Are you using them?

 

[avatuar9]

I know reverb and delay are what can instantly give you a sense of placement within the sound field, but what about if you don't want to add reverb or delay? Take a listen at Norah Jones albums. I would pretty much say her vocals don't have very much reverb at all. If anything, it sounds like her voice was recorded in stereo with two mics because you can pretty much hear her signal flex from one speaker to the other. If they recorded her using one mic, I don't know how they did it. Maybe they used some kind of stereoizer device of some kind.

As an experiment want to try to see if I can record in a place with hardly any reflections, like up in the quiet mountains where I live. Maybe the problem is that I'm not taking the fact that you really need a place where the vocals don't bounce off anything. Maybe then I can place the vocals farther way from the mic to make it sound more natural.

My current setup is: Echo Darla 24/96. Rode NT-1. MAudio DMP3 Mic PreAmp. Behringer Composer Pro-XL. Alesis Monitor One. Samson Sevo 170 amp. Sonar 3 Producer. Adobe Audition. I'm recording at 24 bits.

 

[DonF]

Just checking: You are wearing headphones, rather than using the monitors, when you record vocals, right? Also, you mention that your friend gets a better vocal sound than you do; is it possible that your friend has either a better voice or better vocal technique than you do?

 

[chessrock]

Maybe they used some kind of stereoizer device of some kind.

Uh . . . yea. A stereoizer.

Maybe the problem is that I'm not taking the fact that you really need a place where the vocals don't bounce off anything.

Good accoustics are very important. For what you want, I don't think it's as much an issue of less "bouncing" off of things as it is the good kind of bouncing.

You see, there's good accoustics and bad accoustics, and from what you're describing, it sounds like you've got pretty bad accoustics in your recording environment. Some more key words for you to look up: diffusion, standing waves, and bass traps.

My current setup is: Echo Darla 24/96. Rode NT-1. MAudio DMP3 Mic PreAmp. Behringer Composer Pro-XL. Alesis Monitor One. Samson Sevo 170 amp. Sonar 3 Producer. Adobe Audition. I'm recording at 24 bits.

Not trying to be a jerk, but I have a quick question for you: Do you think Norah Jones uses that setup? What differences do you think there might be from what you're using and what she's using, and do you think this might have something to do with it, also?

 

[distortedrumble]

dang chessrock....you're breaking the man! tell him that theres no santa clause, why dont ya!? lol

 

[mixsit]

I know reverb and delay are what can instantly give you a sense of placement within the sound field, but what about if you don't want to add reverb or delay? Take a listen at Norah Jones albums. I would pretty much say her vocals don't have very much reverb at all. If anything, it sounds like her voice was recorded in stereo with two mics because you can pretty much hear her signal flex from one speaker to the other.

It's very common to have some ambience on a vocal track even if it's not very apparent. One of the tools that sets forward/rear depth is ambience whether in the form of early reflections, delay or reverbs. Consider that the 'reverb' in this case might be faint reflections of the room you're recording in -very short stuff. It might be that recording completely dry would push the image forward.
A general rule of thumb; second to relative volume in the mix, short reflections 'attached' in time to the signal set things back, as does general ambience. Ambience with predelay allows the source to set forward with the ambience to the rear.
I don't want to imply that this is the complete solution, but one of the factors.

It could well be stereo. Vocal candy of yet another flavor.

 

[avatuar9]

Chessrock, I don't think I should campare setups. They have their stuff, I have mine. I believe my equipment can do the same job and theirs. I believe it has to do more with using ones ears and knowing how to shape the sound. That's what I don't have and want to learn. I'm here to learn and ask questions so that I can solve problems and learn from my mistakes. You might know very much about recording, but if you can't teach me, than your not a very good teacher.

I know the importance of controlled acoustics. I have some product info about that subject, I'll be taking a look at it. If anyone else has some more helpfull info, please post a reply. It would be great to see what steps you guys take toward recording vocals. If you have demos somewhere around here please let me know.

 

[lpdeluxe]

Dammit, Avatuar, that's the spirit! Full steam ahead, and dodge the torpedos! What fails to make us stronger kills us, or something like that. It's all about what YOU do, and how close to your own version of perfection you can get, not what Nora Jones' producer does (would he even notice this little blip on the radar here in Deep East Texas?). Do the best you can. You can't help but get better. As Brownie McGee famously said, "If you get worse: Shame on you!"

 

[dave@soundmind]

whats up man,

I would have to agree, the things your probably lacking are room reflections and compression. Buy a hardware compressor! I have never found a digital plug in that can match a real compressor. As you add compression you are only going to accentuate the room your recording in. Probably the best you can hope for would be to record in a completely dead environment and then control your room with reverb plugins, i like waves plugins. If you are recording in a bad room, you can not get a good recording, it doesent matter what the hell you do to it.

Get a hardware compressor. Try these settings:

input : hot
threshold : between -12 and -18
ratio : about 5:1
attack : fast
release : long

the best way to find your compression level is to adjust it in real time, so record it dry then route it back through your compressor to find what sounds good.

Get your vocals good with mic placement and compression before you even think of eq or reverb, use them sparingly. waves has really good eq plugins, i would definitely reccomend them. Avoid using a low cut that has two sudden a cut, adjust the q to be wide so that you leave enough low end to make it natural. the waves eq's let you visually create your eq curves which can be helpful while mastering the techniques of eq.

buy a hardware compressor, and record your vocals in a dead environment and you can acheive a great recording.

 

[chessrock]

if you can't teach me, than your not a very good teacher.

Well, if you can't learn from me, then you're not a good learner, sonny. It's not anyone else's responsibility to teach you (unless they're being paid to do so). The onus is on you to absorb any information you get from whatever the source, and to find a way to learn from it.

The answer to your question is that the people who work with artists like Norah Jones are trained professionals, some with decades of experience and exhaustive training; from combinations of highly-regarded institutions or internships with some of the most respected in the business. The rooms they're recording in are designed by highly paid accoustic designers. They're not recording with Jed and Granny Clampet with an NT-1 in a cabin up in the hills.

Do the best you can for now, but you might try setting more realistic, attainable goals at first, and go in modest steps from there.

 

[Moonrider]

The onus is on you to absorb any information you get from whatever the source, and to find a way to learn from it.

I think he realizes that - read below:

I believe it has to do more with using ones ears and knowing how to shape the sound. That's what I don't have and want to learn. I'm here to learn and ask questions so that I can solve problems and learn from my mistakes.

Do the best you can for now, but you might try setting more realistic, attainable goals at first, and go in modest steps from there.

He's stated a goal. It's high one. I think he realizes he won't get there overnight.

Dang it Chessrock, you probably don't intend to, but you're coming across as a jerk. I KNOW you're not a jerk, but the semantic loading in your posts is making you look that way. Try some kinder, gentler wording!

 

[crispycutz]

Yo yo yeah....

huhuh.....

Dam man I feel your hunger and frustration...

Im a Newbie, but this guy Wockachuka put me on to a cool and informative link when i asked a similar yet less evolved and detailed question.

Its a link to Ozone's Mastering guide, its a real straight foward and accessible read....

Theres like a chapter designated to compression and eq-ing...

please take a skim of the table of contents...im sure somethin'll stir up ur creativity

hope to help brutha--> http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/ozone/OzoneMasteringGuide.pdf

 

[chessrock]

Dang it Chessrock, you probably don't intend to, but you're coming across as a jerk. I KNOW you're not a jerk, but the semantic loading in your posts is making you look that way. Try some kinder, gentler wording!

I'm just challenging the guy, and trying to test his mettle. He set the bar awfully high in the first place . . . not only by setting his sites on getting a "comercial" sound, but by mentioning Norah Jones, he's raising his personal bar to "multiple grammy award-winning" caliber.

So I'm trying to help him understand what it takes. And I admit I'm doing it in a harsh way -- but sometimes you have to do that in order to get people's attention. If grammy-caliber engineering is your goal, then you're going to encounter much more vicious sharks than me at some point.

In another way, I take some of this kind of attitude personally, because I think as a whole, a lot of people are disrespectful to the Audio Engineering community. Disrespectful of the hard work they put in to refining their craft and getting to where they are.

It's kind of like: "I read a few books, and practiced a few scales once in a while over the past few years. Why can't I play guitar just like Clapton?" Although I realize it may not be intentional, isn't that kind of disrespectful of all the hard work and practice Clapton put in to being one of the best guitarists of his generation? And I don't even know if Clapton's a good example, but I hope I illustrated the point.

Quick: Without searching Google, can you name the Producer of Norah Jones' album "Come Away With Me?" Come on . . . no cheating. Now admit it . . . you probably couldn't off the top of your head. Now admit it's disrespectful, in a way. Or at least admit that Producers/Engineers don't get the respect they deserve -- even from guys like us who are highly interested in the subject.

Now, for those of you who have any interest, here's what it takes to get Norah Jones' grammy-winning sound :

Born in Istanbul, Turkey, Arif Mardin graduated from Istanbul University and studied at the London School of Economics. . . . It was a chance meeting with jazz great Dizzy Gillespie that proved to be the stroke of fate. . . . Two years later in 1958, Arif became the first recipient of the Quincy Jones Scholarship at the Berklee College of Music in Boston.

After graduation, he taught at Berklee for one year. He was eventually made a trustee of the school and awarded an honorary doctorate. Mardin joined Atlantic Records in 1963 as an assistant to Nesuhi Ertegun. He was soon named studio manager and subsequently became the label's house producer and arranger. In 1969, he was named a Vice President of the company, and now serves as a Senior Vice President. Mardin enjoys a relationship with Atlantic that allows him to produce albums for other record labels as well.

. . . Arif has collected over forty gold and platinum albums, over 15 Grammy nominations and six Grammy awards.

In 1990, Mardin was inducted into the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Hall of Fame. In 1994, in celebration of his 30th Anniversary with Atlantic Records, he was the subject of a special tribute issue in Billboard magazine. In 1996, Arif earned his sixth Grammy Award for his production of Atlantic Theater's Original Broadway Cast Album of "Smokey Joe's Cafe: The Songs of Leiber and Stoller." The following year, he received a Grammy nomination for the platinum album, The Original Broadway Cast Recording of

Rent. On December 3, 1997, Arif was one of the recipients of the NARAS HEROES. Award presented by Ahmet Ertegun.

 

[Middleman]

Ok, I have studied both of the Norah Jones albums, for months.

You are not going to get there with the DMP3, I have one and trust me the transient control on that box is not going to come close to the high end units they used for her albums.

Next, the compression colors on her voice are coming from high end compressors. You cannot get there with the Behringer. The closest you can come is using the LA2A plug in off a UAD1 card. I have an RNC, DBX boxes and they just do not get you there. Actually the DBX 160x set to easy supplies an OK color while tracking vocals. The UAD1 comes very close to providing compression that rivals expensive high end units. A good compressor brings the voice into the track and tends to center it more. This allows you to work your EQ a little and you end up with a very centered vocal. (Side note: if you cannot get your vocals centered it might be your monitors are not set up correctly or your room is causing imaging problems.)

The mic. You can get a very decent and pro sound out of an inexpensive mic if it is well matched to the voice and running through a preamp in the $700+ price range and above. Class A and Transformers baby, nothing like them.

Mixing. You have to place the voice both pan wise and freq wise in the track.

You can track all day and mix all night and unless you meet a minimum bar in gear, you will not get a pro result. The only way to get around this, possibly, is to do double mic’ing of vocals for intimate and loud parts, put some distance on the mic away from the vocalist, and have a variety of really great rooms to record in; some for vocals others for instruments. This could possibly get around a low end preamp not handling transients quickly i.e. good rooms and a little distance on the mics. Your're still going to need a really great sounding compressor in this scenario for color.

Ahhh, forgot reverb and delay. Well Chessrock covered that adequately. You see, its attention to everything.

My 2 cents. TIOLI

 

[chessrock]

I don't really know if transient response is necessarily a make-or-break factor in getting that kind of vocal track.

If that were the case, then you can forget about using a tube mic or pre, or anything with a transformer in it, for that matter.

If you're lucky enough to have one of those voices like Bono where an SM-57 or Beta 58 just really seems to bring out the best, then you're obviously very lucky, but some voices need a little more or a dash of something else, and that might fall on the more expensive side of the scale.

Accoustics are another beast altogether; takes a lot of resourcefulness and imagination to come up with something on a tight budget, but it can be done if you have the time and space for it.

 

[Middleman]

I don't really know if transient response is necessarily a make-or-break factor in getting that kind of vocal track.

The details and nuances of higher end tracks come from a preamp that can act fast i.e. transient response. Low end preamps tend to sound grainy or less detailed because they do not respond as quickly on an event over time activity. Actually, there are some other reasons too but not to labor the point. The DMP3 specifically produces a series of uneven swings in volume because it reacts slower to volume changes and thus it misses some details and coarsely averages its results vs say a Great River which is faster and produces a smoother and more detailed response.

There's some frequency truncation too with lower end preamps in various ranges. This is what I was alluding to. This is what experience and my ears tell me.

Can it make or break a vocal? If you are trying to get a grainy sound then no, but if you're looking for smoothness and detail indicative of the Norah Jones recordings, then it is integral to hearing those clicking mouth sounds, breaths and sighs which produce that intimate type of sound. I do not get that type of vocal detail when I use a DMP3 however, for acoustic guitar, I would have no problem reaching for a DMP3 and it holds its own against more costly units.

I'm not saying its 100% of the sound however. The mic, limiter and compression is a good portion of the final sound. The details though, from my working with various levels of preamps, come with higher end units.

 

[chessrock]

It sounds like you're refering to slew rate, and I'm afraid that plays a much larger role in more transient-rich material like drums. And most of the INA chip-based pres -- budget or not -- have pretty unbelievable transient response. And yea, tubes and transformers generally tend to slow things down (slower doesn't necessarily = worse, otherwise you'd be saying API or Fearn are inferior), so I don't think you can universally say the speed of a mic pre is going to be a make-or-break. Too many other things involved.